This is often a test of a person's world-views, their philosophy, which they religiously hold, and how that informs their belief in, and their reaction to, authority, 'experts' and 'The Science'.
Thanks - there are many questions that the 'science' leaves unanswered and when people say they have 'lost the data...' well you know what that usually means :) Radiation sickness was never present in the actor-nauts, a rather curious omission from the 'smartest people evah, aka the so-called rocket scientists'.
Thanks yes he is spot on, "...fundamental materialistic tenet that things spontaneously increase in order and complexity violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, a known truth. Ideas that contradict truth are false" Completely true. There is no science to 'evolution'. Just philosophy.
Just curious for your thoughts on a flat Earth. Elon states the odds we aren't in one are a billion to one. Really makes me wonder because that guy is a genius. There's a YT channel called Archaix. The guy takes nothing off the internet. He's got literally hundreds of old books that he's read. He says we're in what he calls a simulacrum, which is basically a simulation. Says we're under a "vapor canopy". He's hard to argue with, really know his books well. The Bible, Genesis1: verses 6,7,8 says in the beginning God separated the waters below from the waters above. IYO What's THAT all about?
As a photographer I'm interested in the images produced in regards to the (alleged) moon landing.
How, for example, were the "live" images of the astronauts goofing around in the space capsule produced and transmitted to earth and displayed on TVs around the world?
If real, the images could obviously not have been recorded on film. Since they have a cold electronic look, they must have been video images.
If so, were the pictures recorded on videotape and then beamed across space to the global audience?
Good question John. To be honest I know zero about photography. But what you say makes sense. The capsule images looked staged. The comms was always a problem including the transmission of 'real time' photos given the reality of their networking, bandwidth etc. One thing I did notice was that many of the moon surface photos seem staged - perfectly framed. Yet the one camera was hanging from the chest, operated by Armstrong supposedly in a silly suit wearing gloves, standing in 250 F temps and massive radiation. They just don't look real given those conditions.
On a (not entirely) unrelated note: I've started to question the truth of many big events, going back to the sixties.
Example: Dallas is a big city. I know because I lived in Dallas-Fort Worth in my newspaper days.
Dallas was a big city even in 1963 when President Kennedy visited. There are (and we're, I believe) three TV stations in Dallas.
Yet I have never seen TV footage of the events in Dealey Plaza, to say nothing of footage captured by one or more national networks.
That seems odd given that a presidential visit to a city was a big deal.
Virtually all we have, then, is the Zapruder film, shot by a private citizen who just happened to be standing in a good spot with his camera as the motorcade passed by.
Some researchers insist that the Zapruder film hasn't been tampered with, a position I think is hard to defend in light of the government's tampering with other evidence and its refusal, even at this late date, to release all of the material it has on the assassination.
I've read a few books on this, all offering additional information and perspectives congruent with your article.
Re the photos supposed to be on the moon - I can't recall where I read this it was ages ago but it proved that the technique was identical to Kubrick's caveman scenes from 2001 where a plain background reached a stark backdrop. It even showed magnified images of the backdrop and you could see the weave of its fabric.
You'll see what I mean if you revisit part 1 of his Space Odyssey.
Definitely, Kubrick is behind a lot of it. I am actually updating the post today, almost a rewrite and there is a section on Kubrick in it. He admitted in 1998 he made the Apollo film. Though I am sure furious debunkers have debunked that etc etc :)
Thanks very much for such a detailed and thoughtful piece on this fascinating subject. I well remember, as a thirteen year old, being allowed to stay up with my parents all night to watch this - what seemed at the time - greatest of mankind’s achievements. Oh, how the years have stripped away the veneer to reveal such a different story. I highly recommend the film ‘American Moon’ which, for me, is one of the best documentary films on this subject, by Italian film-maker Mazzucco. Quite long, but well worth a watch for its (to me) new insights and critical analysis. Here’s a link to the English language version: https://youtu.be/KpuKu3F0BvY?si=qqH0DsRk6b5S7ZN1
Thanks Mike. I am updating this for tomorrow. Had a look at 'American Moon' as well, yes it is very good indeed. Too many issues and inconsistencies with the narrative.
In the section "The Earth, The Stars, The Flag", you ask "Why in the above photo, is the Earth so small?" Maybe I missed something along the way, but that is the moon in the background from the surface of the "moon".
Wow. Eye opening!
Thanks - there are many questions that the 'science' leaves unanswered and when people say they have 'lost the data...' well you know what that usually means :) Radiation sickness was never present in the actor-nauts, a rather curious omission from the 'smartest people evah, aka the so-called rocket scientists'.
It's always wonderful to be appreciated. You would love this guy:
https://www.asifthinkingmatters.com/solving-the-big-questions-third-edition/4-the-laws-of-thermodynamics
Thanks yes he is spot on, "...fundamental materialistic tenet that things spontaneously increase in order and complexity violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, a known truth. Ideas that contradict truth are false" Completely true. There is no science to 'evolution'. Just philosophy.
Just curious for your thoughts on a flat Earth. Elon states the odds we aren't in one are a billion to one. Really makes me wonder because that guy is a genius. There's a YT channel called Archaix. The guy takes nothing off the internet. He's got literally hundreds of old books that he's read. He says we're in what he calls a simulacrum, which is basically a simulation. Says we're under a "vapor canopy". He's hard to argue with, really know his books well. The Bible, Genesis1: verses 6,7,8 says in the beginning God separated the waters below from the waters above. IYO What's THAT all about?
As a photographer I'm interested in the images produced in regards to the (alleged) moon landing.
How, for example, were the "live" images of the astronauts goofing around in the space capsule produced and transmitted to earth and displayed on TVs around the world?
If real, the images could obviously not have been recorded on film. Since they have a cold electronic look, they must have been video images.
If so, were the pictures recorded on videotape and then beamed across space to the global audience?
Good question John. To be honest I know zero about photography. But what you say makes sense. The capsule images looked staged. The comms was always a problem including the transmission of 'real time' photos given the reality of their networking, bandwidth etc. One thing I did notice was that many of the moon surface photos seem staged - perfectly framed. Yet the one camera was hanging from the chest, operated by Armstrong supposedly in a silly suit wearing gloves, standing in 250 F temps and massive radiation. They just don't look real given those conditions.
On a (not entirely) unrelated note: I've started to question the truth of many big events, going back to the sixties.
Example: Dallas is a big city. I know because I lived in Dallas-Fort Worth in my newspaper days.
Dallas was a big city even in 1963 when President Kennedy visited. There are (and we're, I believe) three TV stations in Dallas.
Yet I have never seen TV footage of the events in Dealey Plaza, to say nothing of footage captured by one or more national networks.
That seems odd given that a presidential visit to a city was a big deal.
Virtually all we have, then, is the Zapruder film, shot by a private citizen who just happened to be standing in a good spot with his camera as the motorcade passed by.
Some researchers insist that the Zapruder film hasn't been tampered with, a position I think is hard to defend in light of the government's tampering with other evidence and its refusal, even at this late date, to release all of the material it has on the assassination.
I've read a few books on this, all offering additional information and perspectives congruent with your article.
Re the photos supposed to be on the moon - I can't recall where I read this it was ages ago but it proved that the technique was identical to Kubrick's caveman scenes from 2001 where a plain background reached a stark backdrop. It even showed magnified images of the backdrop and you could see the weave of its fabric.
You'll see what I mean if you revisit part 1 of his Space Odyssey.
Definitely, Kubrick is behind a lot of it. I am actually updating the post today, almost a rewrite and there is a section on Kubrick in it. He admitted in 1998 he made the Apollo film. Though I am sure furious debunkers have debunked that etc etc :)
Thanks very much for such a detailed and thoughtful piece on this fascinating subject. I well remember, as a thirteen year old, being allowed to stay up with my parents all night to watch this - what seemed at the time - greatest of mankind’s achievements. Oh, how the years have stripped away the veneer to reveal such a different story. I highly recommend the film ‘American Moon’ which, for me, is one of the best documentary films on this subject, by Italian film-maker Mazzucco. Quite long, but well worth a watch for its (to me) new insights and critical analysis. Here’s a link to the English language version: https://youtu.be/KpuKu3F0BvY?si=qqH0DsRk6b5S7ZN1
Thanks Mike. I am updating this for tomorrow. Had a look at 'American Moon' as well, yes it is very good indeed. Too many issues and inconsistencies with the narrative.
In the section "The Earth, The Stars, The Flag", you ask "Why in the above photo, is the Earth so small?" Maybe I missed something along the way, but that is the moon in the background from the surface of the "moon".
Good catch, yes you are quite likely right. That did give me a good chuckle. :)
This is an excellent and thorough takedown of the ludicrous hoax, thank you Ferdinand. The Van Allen Belt issue is insurmountable!!
Thanks Laura, I am going to update the post and repost it soon as well.
A U$300 billion industry was spawned. I wonder what the motivation might have been :)